-
Definitions
Dictionary.com
ran·dom (rndm)
adj.
Having no specific pattern, purpose, or objective: random movements; a random choice. See Synonyms at chance.
Statistics. Of or relating to the same or equal chances or probability of occurrence for each member of a group
It seems we have 2 definitions here... One being a "real-world" and the other being purely mathematical in concept and in my opinion "loaned" from the real-world but not for that example.
I have always prescribed (and maintained) that "Random" is the first definition, choosing its reality over a concept designed for statistical mathematics...
Yet it appears Guv has been using the second one to determine what "Random" is.
Is the whole despute about whether the universe is "random" or not simply a matter of definition in which the statement they are really saying is :
"The universe has an equal chance of each member in a specific group to occur"
rather than
"The universe has no pattern, purpose or objective"
-
C'mon guys... Nobody going to comment on this?
You all just going to read it and leave it?
-
Code:
2random adjective (1565)
1 a : lacking a definite plan, purpose, or pattern
b : made, done, or chosen at random <read random passages from the book>
2 a : relating to, having, or being elements or events with definite probability of occurrence <random processes>
b : being or relating to a set or to an element of a set each of whose elements has equal probability of occurrence <a random sample>; also : characterized by procedures designed to obtain such sets or elements <random sampling>
ran•dom•ly adverb
ran•dom•ness noun
Synonyms
random, haphazard, casual mean determined by accident rather than design. random stresses lack of definite aim, fixed goal, or regular procedure <a random selection of books>. haphazard applies to what is done without regard for regularity or fitness or ultimate consequence <a haphazard collection of rocks>. casual suggests working or acting without deliberation, intention, or purpose <a casual collector>.
(C)1996 Zane Publishing, Inc. and Merriam-Webster, Incorporated. All rights reserved.
I got that from the Merriam-Webster's Collegiate PC dictonary
-
Hi,
No offense Gen-X but I have read all of the other posts (not joined in, because I don't believe in religion ;)) and I think you have discussed this random thing to death!
Can't you discuss something else like:
i) Reincarnation
ii) The afterlife
iii) ghosts
I enjoyed your other discussions but I think it may be time for a change of topic ;)
Shaun
-
PI
How does PI fit in?
What about our knowledge of it 100 years ago? What about now and what about in the future?
-
Good idea about the change of topic... But I have discussed Ghosts, mentioned Reincarnation in other posts and also stated my view on the afterlife ;)
VVB
Pi fits in beautifully.
100 years ago we thought it was 22/7
Later we calculated it down to a couple of hundred DP
Now we have it to a couple of hundred thousand (??) DP
You want to say that simply because the number doesn't recurse it means it is random??? Interesting concept, but I would wage a guess to say its more to do with the specifics of the geometry in the ratio between the radius and the circumfrence than anything else... and considering that the circle is the most ORDERED and PERFECT shape we have, to say its shape is determined by a random number is a little bit unsmart
(Hey I didn't bite your head off.... Pat me on the head ;) )
-
Just been thinking about Randomness, and how radio-active decay.
If this decay obeys the half life rule, then we have a pattern. No ?
-
That is why I cannot understand why Guv keeps equating "Statistical" => "Random".
Surely by having statistics it indicates the sum possibilities and therefor has reduced it to a "deterministic" set but not being able to understand what places it in those particular probabilities.
This is why I feel the use of the word random as they see it is simply an indication we haven't been able to find the pattern yet... not that it is random, will always be random and is inherrantly different to everything else in the universe that is determinstic.
-
I don't think I've ever discussed or been interested enough in PI to say it is random, but I believe that MANY others have spoken of it in that way.
My interest IS:
1)That chaos is order if observed long enough. Funny how you mentioned "order/perfection" in the apparent randomness of the sequence of decimals in PI.
2)How does time enter into the equation? (i.e. "observed long enough" and how many decimal places we are knowledgeable of)Is something really random because today I believe it is so?--Now THAT wouldn't be smart.
3)The Deterministic Universe. I think I posted on this forum how I believe that the butterfly flapping its wings in Kansas affects the weather in New York.
4)Watching a movie for the first time. The reel has determined frames, but from my point of view, it is random (the first time).
5)The God Factor.
Why do some of these posts have a rediculous WIDTH, while others seem well contained? The first thing that came to mind was that maybe some people cut and paste from another editor (which may not be wrapping).
-
I agree on the thread width front, but the textareas in the form have their wrap set to virtual, so there is no wrapping anyway. The browser should wrap the text itself. I'm on IE 5 if that makes a difference, but I suspect it's the table width settings or something like that.
-
VirtuallyVB
That is the problem at the moment. There are 2 camps :
Camp 1
They believe QM is "complete" and as such the universe MUST be random in order to explain everything from Radioactive Decay, Polarization and Quantum Entanglement.
Camp 2
They believe in QM but that it is not yet "complete", stating that because there are some things we currently cannot work out it means there are some "hidden variables" which when found will explain why we "perceived" it to be random
The aggrovation arises because Camp 1 arrogantly think they have a complete totality of everything that Quantum Mechanics explains and scoff at the idea they have missed or have yet to find something... How very arrogant of them.
I keep trying to tell Guv and Harry this... but they simply refuse to listen to it.
"Just because we cannot FIND a pattern... does NOT mean one does not exist"
Take Quantum Entanglement for instance... If you take a positron/electron pair, you can seperate them by as much distance as you like and when you "observe" one of them it is either in a state of being "Up" (Rotating clockwise) or "Down" (rotating anti-clockwise). Whatever you observe the state of one particle to be it instantaneously sets the "other" particle to the same state... I believe this is what they call "Polarization".
The problem is that if you "test" this same particle over and over again the result changes... It is this change that they call "random" stating that there is no consistency in the state and it cannot be predicted.
Does that mean there isn't something that governs what it is? They would have you think so.
They constantly forge the fact that the only way we can "detect" such states is to use devices in the classical world... and as we all know, when trying to detect something Quantum we influence the result just in our presence doing it.
Imagine something that is switching between 0 and 1 about a zillion times ever billionth of a second.... Now imagine with human (or even unhuman) speed capturing whether its a 0 or a 1. Even if the difference is an exact and deterministic amount it would not be possible for us to get down to enough accuracy to detect it close enough to note the change in state.
So the end result is that we capture a set of what we consider "random" numbers due to our poor equipment... which is the biggest claim that refutes Quantum Randomness at the moment.
And people like Guv and Harry would simply say that we are thinking "too classically"... rather than realising the truth that we have thought classically... evolved quantumly and then taken it a step FURTHER to actually see how the two interact with one another... they are still stuck on the "Oooo.. its a wave!!!!"
Now do you think either of these people would lend any credibility to what I am saying? Of course not... despite the fact there are just as many scientists who agree with me than don't and they STILL refuse to accept that I may know what I am talking about.
-
All those posts and you still have no idea what I think. Shame really cos I've explained it many many times.
I'm not going to argue with you about it any further, you just turn everything into an argument and badly misquote me. Futile.
Well carry on, you'll find something to argue with someone about soon enough I'm sure.
